(clone) Should presidents tweet?

Interesting question. I think they should, and here is why. Talking in pubic is the same as thinking in public … except of course thinking is private, and talking is public, especially if you have an audience. Now tweeting is the same as talking … and so the same as thinking.

Now i don’t know about you, but i sure as hell want to know what my president is thinking. #Trump #Twitter #tweeting #thinking #saying #SocratesCafe

But we discussed: What is the value of happy?
← this things like this

Comments

Presumably the tweets are unfiltered by M$M . Knowing what he is thinking is a toss-up

Talking IS NOT the same as thinking. I don’t know where you get that from. In all the people I know personally, and all the ones I don’t, and all the books and movies and shows I have seen, one thing stands out very clearly. It is a rarity to find someone who says what they are thinking!

And especially in Trump’s case, I would say that his tweeting has almost nothing to do with what Trump is thinking. I would say his tweeting has to do with what he want’s you to be thinking!

well of course … but then that is the whole point.

you bring up how this person is talking … how what they are saing is connected to what they are thinking. But how a person connects what that say with what they think is in fact what i want to know about them. That is what leads the country.

Well this rings a dead false to me “Now tweeting is the same as talking … and so the same as thinking.”

Thinking and talking hardly relate to each other and you say in this statement that they are equivalent. Thinking is what you do, talking is what you want others to think you are thinking if you are self focused, and what you want them to think themselves if you are other focused. Neither are directly related to what you think except perhaps in .01% of the population … people with Downs Syndrome for instance.

Plagiarized this from seth by exporting his thought and importing it here. Seems quite authentically falsely acquired … very complete! The title date is off, but that seems a global issue on other posts too. The mouseover dates at the bottom are correct.

well good news is that we see out first clone

bad news it doesn’t identify as a clone … i started editing it last night at the meeting thinking that i was it’s author, which i was, and got informed that i was misinformed .

i get that from noticing that two behaviors which people have traditionally considered to be totally different are actually the same behavior happening in two different contexts.

the only difference between thinking and talking is that the audience is different.

Experience of real, active thinking does not arise from brain any more than mirror creates image of face before it. Soul must be there first to prepare the brain to reflect the thought. Compare with hex & note work of preparing brain to think is done by soul assisted by the COSMOS.

👍

Not an #aug at all just not your munge. A reflection (metaphor) in a mirror is hard to get in 2 souls at once; even if you were to try 2 people at once looking in a mirror .

maybe some of marks and my comments got lost by me trying to get de-cloned.

Well that is the stigma of the clone. Same when you clone humans. It can be difficult to tell the cloned human from the prime.

If you want a fork, then create a fork. Then it is identified as a fork. Perhaps, to keep the peace, a clone created in the same domain can have the forking stigmata applied … since you now own the clone and can remove the tattoo stamp if you so choose.

A clone created in a foreign domain must be pure … for that is the reason for cloning … to have that exact thought over in the new domain … not a copy with a tattooed bar code.

Cloning by another in the printed world is usually called plagiarism. To what purpose is cloning? Is there such a poverty of thoughts that one has to clone them? To what purpose is the feature developed?

well, whether it is cloned in the source domain or a foreign one, it still should not say that the cloning person was the author of the thought … unless he was.

why not just add a line to the display of a clone, which need not be there if it is the same author.

we need thoughts to have #motility between domains … even between groups in one domain.

these thinks need to be able to circulate.

You might think of it like the old #scm project on steriods … finally finding a universe in which it can happen.

Well, as we just discussed a day ago, same authors don’t always exist in a foreign domain. Hence one cannot clone it as the same author. One MUST clone as the current author because only the current author can be known without doubt.

The whole point of cloning from one domain to another is to get something over there from over here. One cannot just add stuff willy nilly to the thought during that process or the thought can break. This feature will often be used to move utilities and plugin thoughts. Can’t just add stuff unknown to such beasts.

The actual need for cloning a diatribe to another domain is actually quite dubious. Why would you even need to do that? You can just point to the original diatribe in the original domain.

Cloning is to move features … and must remain pure, and must end up owned by the current author in a foreign domain. This is clear.

Forking to another domain would be a different feature … and could easily be built on top of this feature.

Clones are necessary to move features between domains. For most other purposes, a fork is more appropriate, as we have demonstrated and enjoyed using.

However, it is unclear procedurally how to ergomatically choose between a fork and a clone.

well yes we are up against that same edge we discussed yesterday.

Thing is the new cloned thought can be owned by the cloner and not the clonee. The authorship data is just informational and can be coded such that it does not require that identity to exist in the destination domain … well at least untill you can developt trans domain identities.

But really it is not a good idea to allow #SeriTD to facilitate #lies. That is not the kind of system that i want.

well we do not have fork of a thought itself … just a fork of a comment.

Yea, so? Now we have the ability to have one. I speak as if the present is the present, because it always is and always has been.

there also is no good reason for normal type font to be changed to italic. frequently i use italics to make syntactic distinctions in my writing. a clone of my thought should not wipe out those distinctions.

There is also no good reason to make such a big splash about the quote with all of the extra padding.

a simple container indicating the body of the thought might suffice if any container is actually necessary.

notice that i should be able to take the itealic out of the container above, but i cannot because it is subordinated to the overall quote.

#rfc #clones

I took all our styling from Bootstrap and the norm for all these kinds of things. I did not invent any of it myself. And personally, I love how it works. Quoted material is so clear and nice and well presented. And I love the italics too!

Italics are nice … and the big bold dramatic quote is a nice style too … i have no complaint with them per say … and i also like them.

However, nesting the body of a thought inside a style that forces italics, means that the original author’s use of italics is eliminated. That is a serious problem for me because i use italics to express myself syntactically. Forcing italics makes the cloning falsify some of the original author’s representation. The same goes for the extra drama introduced by all the padding. Falsifying representation when they are cloned should be a #NoNo.

Quoting only happens in a forking, not a true cloning. And in a forking, all the extra syntactical sugar is what keeps things clear and maintains a flow state. Perhaps you should re-think your use of italics. Or perhaps you are over dramatizing what others actually see in your presentation. Or perhaps a Unicorn did it!

well the same reasons apply to a forking.

The other matters you mention are either irrelivant, subjective to you, or not for you to decide.

People should be free to represent their thoughts just as they please. And if those representationa are quoted, or cloned, they should be quoted or cloned exactly as they were originally represented.

I love the new way the edit box now opens up almost exactly over the matter to be edited .

You say you are not different with Donald Trump as president. I say you are! … I have noticed quite a few other people are different too! Quite interesting.

👍

thing is, nathan, i am different, in the way that trump’s changes in the world would #inform, almost every single day of my life. the only difference that happened at noon yesterday for me, was that now #Trump can actually do things in the large being of America, with the force of the American government behind his thoughts … but i was quite prepared for that, so no real change in my personal behavior happened because he took office. You must be noticing something inside yourself in relationship to trump … not something you are actually sensing of me.

the changes you are probably sensing in my dealing with you cannot be credited to #Trump. they are things that have been evolving between us which perhaps you just noticed today.

👍

None of that is true. Point of fact is that you allow your vibration to follow, and part of your beliefs place the President in a leadership role. Therefore, your vibration is now being led, in part, not all of it, by Trumps vibration. Trump has an extremely strong vibration, so that further places your vibration subjective to his.

This is not anything you could ever do something about with your will, or by wishing it away. This is pure vibration and operates independent of your desire. The only way you could ever change this is to change the operating beliefs first, then strengthen your own vibration in the areas where you prefer to lead (if you do).

I saw this happen. I then came to understand it by the simplicity of #LOA. And know I know it. It’s actually cool, even though most would #aug on it.

What is this “almost” though? For me, in Chrome, it is absolutely exact … not one pixel changes.

Well certainly #Trump has a strong leadership vibration and is playing his role to the hilt. It also #RingsTrue that i might be effected by that vibration.

But what i said above is also true.

You #MakeShitUp about how Trump’s vibration effects me but you can not know what you are talking about. You did not form your conclusions by observing my behavior, but rather by anticpiting it according to your own subjective beliefs. What might be a #BetterTruth is if you would speak to how his vibrations have effected you.

Nope. I saw your behavior change first, without even expecting it. Then I asked, and the mult-verse answered. Nothing is made up about you. Everything I said applies to everyone equally.

What specific behavior did you notice happening? And when did you notice it?

The one I hid.

point to it directly !

#btw nathan i might even believe you, were i to see the objective evidence to triangulate the experience.

mark. The difference between a drive by shitting and what I do is that you don’t explain anything. You pretend like everyone already always should know the way you believe things to be and anything else is an insult for you to shit upon.

I explain fully everything I write about #LOA or anything else. I don’t pretend like you should know it. I respect you by helping you understand what my belief is and where I am coming from and why what I am saying works and how you can get the same results. If you will do the same, I will happily have dialog with you. Just shitting and going, no explanation about why you don’t like it, is not appreciated.

Explaining with jibberish is just more fiction.

I don’t explain with gibberish. Everything I say is easily understood, well connected, and above all, very consistent. Just because you don’t agree with it does not make it gibberish. That is the whole problem in a nutshell. You are prejudiced against what you don’t believe in. 100 years ago it could just as easily been Blacks and you would be saying “they belong in the back of the bus because they are inferior” … no explanation why you believe that, just a shitting.

Isn’t everybody? Necessarily! Not believing in something IS being prejudiced against it.

But, nathan, we do not always act according to our private subjective prejudices … somtimes we see them as just own thingies … and not always useful to vibrate into the world for others to trip on.

No, prejudiced is an action. It is a degrading of something for the sake of your belief over another belief. Simply believing differently is not being prejudiced. One has to do something for the label prejudiced to manifest meaning.

well that is not the common usage of the word. people normally consider a prejudice to be a belief. They do not consider the prejudice to be a deed in concert with that belief. It is easy to distinguish the two.

I am prejudiced against #okra. I do not like it. When i exclude it from my #gumbo i am acting in concert with my prejudice. When i put it in the gumbo anyway, because denise likes that tradition, my deeds transcend my prejudice.

We do not need to act on our subjective beliefs. We have the wisdom to know that they are just our subjective thingies and need not be transmitted to the outside world.

(clone) Should presidents tweet? (comment 70731) ← the first clue to your jibberish (or gibberish) is when I asked you what is vibrating & you said “YOU” – that is nonsense. One can’t even draw a boundary for what is you or what is vibrating from that. I can make a tuning fork vibrate or guitar strings or a column of air in a flute or machines. Go back to the 60’s dudes.

That is not true seth. I don’t experience people going around calling any other prejudiced because of what they believe in their own mind. People only call others prejudiced when another actually does something to warrant that label. I really don’t care what some dictionary that was made to be the best possible thought on the subject in some other era says. It is very clear that the “common usage” of the word prejudiced in action out there in the world today is about the actions of others based on beliefs, not about what people believe.

Well mark, apparently you don’t have a foundational reference for what “you vibrating” would be. I have actually explained that many times in our dialogs over the last several years … but if you truly don’t get it today, and this is not just another shitting, I will happily explain what “you vibrating” is. And in any case, calling it “nonsense” is a shitting all by itself … you don’t know if it is nonsense or not since you don’t know what it is.

Yep, I don’t seek nor look for foundational references to gibberish !
No thank you!
Let seth explain what he thinks you mean by it.

As I said mark, that is exactly what prejudice is. i.e. you call it gibberish and move on. No explanation. No accounting for your own differing beliefs. Just shit and go … like we did to Black people 100 years ago … and now you do to the modern #LOA crowd.